SURESH GOPILAL VERMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7507/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the death of the assessee and the failure to bring legal heirs on record, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the NFAC, citing a delay due to suffering from cancer. The assessee has since expired, and legal heirs have not been brought on record despite a notice. The original appeal before the NFAC was dismissed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication due to the death of the assessee and non-substitution of legal heirs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. D.R
Hearing: 16.04.2025Pronounced: 27.05.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.08.2013, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2007-08.

2.

At the outset, we observe that there is delay of 51 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the assessee by filing duly shown affidavit dated 31.03.2017 along with medical documents, has claimed that the assessee was suffering from cancer and therefore getting the treatment from time to time, which resulted into delay of 51 days in filing of the instant appeal. On the contrary the Ld. DR though refuted the claim of the assessee but not the documents filed by the assessee. Considering delay as reasonable, bonafide and un-intentional, the same is condoned.

3.

Coming to the merits of the case, we have been informed that the assessee in the instant case has already been expired and therefore the legal heirs of the assessee are required to be brought on record. We observe that the notice to the son of the deceased assessee was sent for filing an application under Rule 26 of the Tribunal Rules, for bringing on records the legal heirs, however, till date no compliance has been made.

We further observe that even otherwise, the Assessee before the ld. Commissioner also remained un-represented and therefore the ld. Commissioner has passed the order in appeal as ex-parte and in the constrained circumstances dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the legal heirs of the assessee. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →